Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
N. Seshasayee, J.
Fathima – Appellant
Versus
Rahamutullah and Ors. – Respondents
C.R.P. (MD) No. 1045 of 2020 and CMP (MD) No. 6673 of 2020
Decided On : 14-12-2020
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Re-opening the case for cross-examining - Relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit property without following due process of law - Instant suit was filed in the year of for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of suit property without following due process of law - Petition is filed before this court at the stage of final argument - Court forms opinion that, it is necessary to find out real intention of the petitioner/plaintiff from the available case records to decide his application - instead of marking documents on her side -Petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A. to receive additional documents and it was adjourned perusal of docket sheet petitioner/plaintiff was not ready to conduct enquiry – Held, procedural law has its inherent elasticity and flexibility to accommodate multivarious circumstances which human imagination may not be able to visualise or catalogue - Courts cannot afford to assume a disciplinarian-attitude, and obstruct the litigant's aspiration for securing justice. Watch, Weigh and Value may be a reasonable approach that may enable balancing processual justice in individual cases - Courts may not ignore that we are a country chiefly made of illiterate and ignorant citizens, most of who have to combat economic and social disabilities for their meaningful existence under the Constitution - Their right to justice therefore, should not be killed by fitting them all in a common denominator - Every case has its flavour, and every litigant has his own share of misery - Imperative that the Courts should watch, weigh and value each of them for accommodating their request for exercising procedural discretion - Petition is dismissed
ORDER :
N. Seshasayee, J.
1. The plaintiff in O.S. 641 of 2012 has approached this court with this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order dismissing her application in I.A. 275/2020 for re-opening the case for cross-examining D.W. 1. She has laid the suit inter alia against her husband and the parents-in-law for injunction and for other reliefs.
2. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the application Vide the order now impugned. Be it a cursory reading, or a careful reading, what this order conveys in paragraphs 5 to 10 is evident: it is a general statement, expressing the agony which the courts are put to by some litigants. It is extracted below:
6. Subsequently this suit was restored as per order in I.A. No. 68 of 2014 dated 28.09.2015 and the suit was listed for trial on many hearings (i.e., 12.10.2015-05.11.2015-18.11.2015). On 24.11.2015, the plaintiff examined herself in chief as P.W. 1 by filing proof affidavit and at the request of the petitioner/plaintiff, the main suit was adjourned to 09.12.2014 to 18.12.2015-19.01.2016-29.01.2016-02.02.2016 for the purpose of marking documents.
7. After availing such opportunities, instead of marking documents on her side, on 11.02.2016 the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 178 of 2016 to receive additional documents and it was adjourned for enquiry on 04.04.2016-12.04.2016-02.06.2016. On perusal of docket sheet in I.A. No. 178/2016, it reveals that, the petitioner/plaintiff was not ready to conduct enquiry in I.A. NO. 178/2016. Finally, in the interest of justice, this court allowed the petition (I.A. No. 178/2016) on 14.06.2016 itself, without conducting any enquiry from the side of petitioner/plaintiff.
8. Even after allowing such interim application (I.A. No. 178/2016), the petitioner/plaintiff (P.W. 1) was not appeared before this court for the purpose of marking documents on her side for many hearings (i.e. 29.06.2016-26.07.2016-29.08.2016-19.09.2016-19.09.2016-04.10.2016-20.10.2016) and the plaintiff/petitioner (P.W. 1) marked documents on her side only on 02.11.2016. Even after that, the petitioner/plaintiff has repeatedly requested for adjournment on 21.11.2016-05.12.2016 to 20.12.2016-12.01.2017-06.02.2017-22.04.2017-29.04.2017-17.06.2017-12.07.2017 and finally petitioner/plaintiff (P.W. 1) cross examined only on 27.07.2017.
9. Thereafter, the main suit was posted for further P.W's on 09.08.2017, but the suit was adjourned to 29.08.2017-13.09.2017-03.10.2017-10.10.2017 as per request made by the petitioner/plaintiff. On 30.10.2017, a witness was examined in chief as P.W. 2 and cross examined by the defendant side on 11.01.2018. After that the plaintiff side evidence was closed on 22.02.2018, because of non-representation from the side of petitioner/plaintiff. Thereafter the defendant side evidence was closed by this Court on 12.07.2018 and posted for arguments. But the petitioner/plaintiff side failed to argue their cases on 24.07.2018-07.08.2018-16.08.2018-30.08.2018-06.09.2018 to 19.09.2018 to 04.10.2018-23.10.2018 and this court closed the petitioner/plaintiff side argument on 31.10.2018, because of non-cooperation from the side of the petitioner/plaintiff.
10. Thereafter the defendant side reopened their evidence, but it was r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
